inventory_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add genuine domain context (metres as units, ground-corrected unity_origin/unity_bounds vs raw origin/native preserving source zero). It does not disclose that the operation is read-only, what auth/config is required, how paging behaves, or anything about the returned payload.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no padding, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity: the coordinate-system jargon is front-loaded ahead of any plain statement of what the tool returns. Efficiently sized but under-specified rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a 5-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage the description omits the meaning of config_path and model_id (both required), the filtering role of name_contains, and any read-only/permission posture. An agent could not confidently construct a call from it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters (config_path, model_id, limit, offset, name_contains), and the description explains none of them. It instead discusses unity_origin/unity_bounds, which are not even input parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only "Page" loosely hints at limit/offset.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Page current instances/visibility" is close to a restatement: it names a paging behaviour and an ambiguous object ("instances/visibility") without saying what an instance is or what this inventory covers. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like environment_inspect or config_read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus environment_inspect, config_read, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only quasi-instruction ("Use ground-corrected unity_origin/unity_bounds for config") is about interpreting output, not about tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.